UPM CAMPSC - appeal vs SR ruling

8/3/2019 UPM CAMPSC - appeal vs SR ruling

1/16

Student CouncilCollege of Allied Medical ProfessionsUniversity of the Philippines Manila

UP Manila Academic Site, Pedro Gil St ., Malate, Manila, Philippines 1004

January 26, 2012

TO: THE OFFICE OF THE STUDENT REGENT AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STUDENT COUNCILS

Greetings!

We, the University of the Philippines Manila College of Allied Medical Professions Student Council

(UPM CAMPSC), send this letter of appeal to the Office of the Student Regent (OSR) and the General

Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) to demonstrate to both institutions that the ruling the presiding

officer made on the second day of the most recent convention of the GASC was irregular, baseless, and

contradictory to students interests and should therefore be declared null and void.

During the GASC convention held last December 20-21, 2011 at the College of Fisheries and OceanStudies, UP Miag-ao campus, Iloilo, as House Rule Art. I Sec. 4 was still pending on the floor, the

Chairperson of UP Miag-ao School of Technology Student Council (SOTECHSC) informed the Assembly

that financial assistance plus an incentive of P2,000.00 was offered to her student council in exchange of

voting in favor of the amendments to the CRSRS proposed by various UP student councils. On this basis

of what she interpreted as attempted bribery, Student Regent Maria Kristina Krissy Conti ruled that,

because the integrity of the GASC has thus been compromised, the proposed CRSRS amendments

despite being legitimately part of the then proposed agenda of the convention shall not be discussed

at all during the same GASC convention until such time when the allegation of bribery has been resolved

by OSR-spearheaded investigations.

In light of the fact that the GASC is by precedence governed by Roberts Rules of Order or parliamentarylaw and by virtue of its juridical identity provided by the CRSRS which is made a public document by RA

9500 or the UP Charter, this ruling by the SR is highly irregular, baseless, and contradictory to the

interests of the students for at least three (3) respective reasons:

1. The ruling of the Student Regent is irregular due to its non-compliance to universallyapplicable parliamentary procedure as stipulated in Roberts Rules of Order.

Assuming that the Student Regent as presiding officer merely responded to a point or

question, the allegation of bribery made by UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC was a point of

manifestation, not a question of privilege, which means that it did not require any decision

from either the body in assembly or, much less, the presiding officer, which rules only on

points of order.

Due to the fact that no proper parliamentary form was used for both the acts of UP Miag-ao

SOTECHSC and the presiding officer of the Assembly the Student Regent it is difficult to

interpret what exactly they were doing during the GASC convention. While UP Miag-ao

SOTECHSC as a member of the Assembly who may have not been too familiar with

parliamentary procedure as stipulated by Roberts Rules of Order (RONR) may be excused

from this mistake, it is however the duty of the presiding officer to: a) be familiar with


2/16


Pedro Gil St., UPM Compound, Malate, Manila, Philippines 1004

parliamentary law; b) explain to any member of the Assembly what exactly the said member

was doing according to parliamentary law; and c) follow the proper form of parliamentary

procedure at all times during the meeting. These duties have been, however, largely ignored

by the presiding officer while in Assembly.

Nonetheless, to provide area of discussion as to whether or not the series of events leading

to the postponement of the discussion of the CRSRS amendments was in accordance to

RONR, we assume here that the presiding officer was at least trying to act according to

parliamentary law and thus instead interpret what exactly she was trying to do.

The most understandable scenario therefore that may legitimize the ruling of the presiding

officer to postpone the discussion of the CRSRS amendments is that a) the Chairperson of

UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC rose to a question of privilege; and, in response, b) the presiding

officer thus ruled that, on the basis of the question of privilege which shall be immediatelypending before the Assembly, the best course of action to take is to postpone the discussion

of the CRSRS amendments which she believed to be intrinsically tied to the allegation of

bribery.

This scenario, while best explaining the parliamentary attitudes of the two actors in the

Assembly, is however flawed. First and foremost, the presiding officer in an Assembly may

rule only on questions of order per RONR (4th ed.) 21 and 58. This excludes questions of

privilege which is debatable and shall be ruled by the majority of the Assembly when

pending per RONR (4th ed..) 19.

Second, the act of the Chairperson of UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC in fact cannot be considered aquestion of privilege because questions of privilege propose an act to be adopted by the

Assembly. Properly called, a question of privilege is a motion, meaning, it must be

directional and object-oriented. What UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC did, however, was not at all

directional or object-oriented. She merely informed the Assembly. To what end? We have

no more answer now as the Chairperson of UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC had during the Assembly.

Thus, the act of UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC cannot be considered a proper motion; instead, it

was nothing more than a point of manifestation, which requires no action from the

Assembly. This fact is also important in the sense that, technically, the presiding officer had

nothing to rule on because there was no course of action presented to the presiding officer.

The scenario therefore fails. As far as our knowledge can determine, we are left with no

other interpretation than that the Student Regent as presiding officer was in actuality not

responding to or ruling on any motion or question but was instead forwarding an entirely

new motion before the Assembly.

This conclusion brings us to a new set of possible scenarios to explain what, per

parliamentary procedure, happened when the Student Regent ruled that the discussion of

CRSRS amendments shall be postponed. All these possible scenarios, however, are per

RONR out of order.


3/16



Interpreting the Student Regents ruling to not discuss the proposed CRSRS amendments as a

motion, the ruling was out of order because the Student Regent cannot make any motion

during the Assembly.

In line with the duties of the presiding officer to maintain at all times impartiality during the

proceedings of an assembly per parliamentary law, a presiding officer is barred in large

meetings (more than a dozen; the GASC was a meeting of more than a hundred delegates)

from making any motion unless he/she relinquishes the chair. While RONR (10 th ed.) p. 382

stipulates explicitly that the presiding officer *if+ a member of the society has as an

individual the same rights as any other member, the impartiality of the chair in an

assembly precludes his exercising these rights while he is presiding. One of the rights

enjoyed by a member of an assembly is to forward a motion to the assembly; this right

however, as RONR (10th ed.) p. 382 provides, is waived once the member is the presidingofficer.

In fact, aside from this duty of impartiality, the Student Regent is not even a regular,

legitimate, and bona fide member of the GASC. CRSRS Art. I Sec. 2 as empowered by RA

9500 or the UP Charter defines the General Assembly of Student Councils as the University

and College Student Councils in the UP System. This provision thus unequivocally excludes

the Student Regent as a member of the Assembly. He/she therefore does not enjoy any of

the rights accorded to a member of an assembly per parliamentary law.

It was therefore completely illegal for the Student Regent to have ruled in favor of or

motioned for the postponement of the discussion of the CRSRS amendments on the basesthat a) the Student Regent as presiding officer cannot make any motion; and b) the Student

Regent, being a non-member of the GASC, cannot make any motion. The act of the Student

Regent was, therefore, out of order.

Assuming still, however, for the sake again of discussion, the Student Regent was allowed to

make motions before the Assembly, how is the motion to be interpreted? The motion can

be interpreted in only three ways: a) a main motion to amend the agenda; b) a subsidiary

motion to lay on the table the CRSRS amendments as order of the day; and c) a subsidiary

motion to postpone definitely the question of the CRSRS amendments. In all such scenarios,

however, the act of the Student Regent can only be interpreted as, yet again, out of order.

The Student Regents ruling to not discuss the proposed CRSRS amendments was, if it were

interpreted as a main motion to amend the agenda, out of order because a question was still

pending at the time, which was then the GASCs House Rules, specifically Art. I Sec. 4.

If the motion of the Student Regent were to be interpreted as a main or principal motion

to amend the proposed agenda that the Student Regent herself crafted, RONR (4th

ed.) 11

or the rule on main motions takes effect. In RONR (4th

ed.) 11, it is provided explicitly and


4/16



unequivocally that a main motion takes precedence of nothing that is, it cannot be made

when any other question is before the assembly.

At the time when the Student Regent made the ruling or motion, the only question pending

was the question of whether or not to adopt House Rule Art. I Sec. 4, which does not in any

way pertain to or affect the orders of the day (the agenda). Thus, because a main motion

such as that of the Student Regent, as interpreted here for the sake of discussion, cannot be

made while a question is before the Assembly, especially since the pending question had

nothing to do with the agenda, the main motion was out of order.

What motion then could have been made at the time, even as there was a pending question

before the Assembly? There are only two remaining a subsidiary motion to lay on the table

and a subsidiary motion to postpone definitely. In the next two following points, the rules

surrounding both subsidiary motions are discussed and applied.

The Student Regents ruling to not discuss the proposed CRSRS amendments was, if it were

interpreted as a subsidiary motion to lay on the table the CRSRS amendments, out of order

by virtue of the CRSRS amendments not being the pending order of the day, which was then

the GASCs House Rules, specifically Art. I Sec. 4.

If the motion of the Student Regent were to be interpreted as a subsidiary motion to lay

on the table the discussion of the CRSRS amendments which was part of the proposed

orders of the day crafted by the Student Regent herself, RONR (4 th ed.) 28 or the rule on

the motion to lay on the table takes effect. In RONR (4 th ed.) 28, it is clearly stipulated that

a motion to lay on the table cannot be applied to anything except a question actuallypending, therefore it is not in order to lay on the table a class of questions, as the orders of

the day, or unfinished, or reports of committees, because they are not pending questions, as

only one main motion can be pending at a time. [emphasis added+

What was the question pending at the time the motion to lay on the table was made by

the Student Regent? The pending question was, again, whether or not to adopt House Rule

Art. I Sec. 4. What was the Student Regent, per our assumption in this point, trying to lay

on the table? The Student Regent was trying to lay on the table a class of questions not

pending an order of the day not yet before the Assembly at the time which was the

agendum on the proposed CRSRS amendments.

It is thus clear that no such motion to lay on the table can be made.

The ruling to not discuss the proposed CRSRS amendments was, presuming it was a

subsidiary motion to postpone definitely the questions of the CRSRS amendments, out of

order because there was no specific time proposed as to when the GASC shall be in session

again to discuss the postponed question.


5/16



If, in another scenario, the motion of the Student Regent were to be interpreted as a

subsidiary motion to postpone definitely the questions of the CRSRS amendments, RONR

(4th

ed.) 31 takes effect.

According to the Student Regent, discussion of the proposed CRSRS amendments shall be

postponed until investigations on the allegation of bribery conclude. According to RONR (4 th

ed.) 31:

TheForm of [the motion to postpone definitely] depends upon the object sought.

(1) If the object is simply to postpone the question to the next meeting, when it will

have precedence of new business, the form of the motion is to postpone the question

*or, that the question be postponed+ to the next meeting. It then becomes a general

order for that meeting.

(2) If the object is to specify an hour when the question will be taken up as soon as the

question then pending, ifthere is any, is disposed of, the form is similar to this: I move

that the question be postponed to 3 P.M.

(3) If it is desired to postpone the question until after a certain event, when it shall

immediately come up, the form is, To postpone the question until after the address on

Economics.

(4) If the object is to insure its not being crowded out by other matters there should be

added to the motion to postpone as given in the first two cases above, the words, andbe made a special order. Or the motion may be made thus: I move that the question be

postponed and made a special order for the next meeting *or, for 3 P.M. tomorrow+.

The motion in this form requires a two-thirds vote, as it suspends the rules that may

interfere with its consideration at the time specified as explained under Orders of the

Day.

(5) If it is desired to postpone a question to an adjourned meeting and devote the entire

time, if necessary, to its consideration, as in case of revising by-laws, after providing for

the adjourned meeting the motion should be made in this form: I move that the

question be postponed and made the special order for next Tuesday evening. Or, a

question may be postponed and made the special order for the next regular meeting.

It is thus clearly provided by RONR (4th ed.) 31 that the form of a motion to postpone

definitely must include the definite time as to when the postponed question can be taken

up again. In the first place, the time proposed by the Student Regent was not definite and

clear, citing only the conclusion of investigations on the alleged bribery.

Still, we give the Student Regent benefit of the doubt. Prior to this, it was already forgiven

that the Student Regent did not word her ruling properly per parliamentary parlance so as


6/16



to stop us from guessing what exactly she was doing (which in the first pace should not have

been forgiven), so we do not stick strictly to the form provided by RONR wherein the motion

should be identified first. Thus, having already let such pass, we again let it pass that the

Student Regent may have been using form (3) of the cited provisions on the form of the

motion to postpone definitely or to a certain time. The provision on form (3) reads: If it is

desired to postpone the question until after a certain event, when it shall immediately come

up, the form is, To postpone the question until after the address on Economics. The

problem here is that the certain event provided must be, by customs and corollaries to

customs of parliamentary law, an event during the Assembly and not outside of it, else it

shall achieve the same object of form (1) to postpone to a meeting after the current

meeting. If the Student Regent were, as presumed here, seeking the same object as form

(1), then, as provided by RONR (4th

ed.) 31 (The Form of this motion depends upon the

object sought.), she should have used form (1).

Contentions may arise that, perhaps, by some twist of cosmos, the Student Regent was

legitimately using form (3). We, the UP Manila CAMPSC, maybe so kind or blind as to let

such pass. However, this shall tie and oblige the Student Regent to reconvening the GASC

before a quarter of a year three months ends to discuss the postponed order of the day,

the CRSRS amendments. Why? RONR Off. Interp. 2006-8, www.robertsrules.com reads:

Q. The following rules relating to the motion to Postpone appear on page 175 ofRONR,

10th ed.:

In a case where more than a quarterly time interval (see p. 88) will elapse betw een

meetings (for example, in an annual convention of delegates or in a local societythat holds only an annual meeting), a question cannot be postponed beyond the

end of the present session. In cases where no more than a quarterly time interval

(see p. 88) will elapse between sessions, a question can be postponed until, but not

beyond, the next regular business session. For example, in a society that holds

regular business meetings on the same day of each week, a question cannot, at one

meeting, be postponed for longer than a week.

Can these rules be suspended? That is to say, can the rules be suspended in order to

permit postponement of a motion to the next session if that session will not be held

within a quarterly time interval, or to permit postponement to a session beyond the

next session when sessions are held within quarterly time intervals?

A. No. These are actually attempts to impose a rule of order upon a future session, or,

stated in another way, attempts to suspend the rules applicable in a future session,

which cannot be done except by the adoption of a special rule of order (or amendment

to the bylaws). RONR, (10th ed.), p. 85, l. 14-19; p. 252, l. 7-10 (When an assembly

wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or

more of its regular rules, it can ... Suspend the Rules ... .*emphasis added+).
http://popup%28%27citation.html%27%29/http://popup%28%27citation.html%27%29/http://popup%28%27citation.html%27%29/http://popup%28%27citation.html%27%29/


7/16



This means that the GASC mustreconvene, at the latest, March 20-21, 2012.

Thus, having forgiven already the fact that the presiding officer the Student Regent was

not properly using parliamentary form per parliamentary law and having laid down all

possible scenarios for her to postpone the CRSRS amendments discussion in all five points so

far, we still find that, in all scenarios, be it the original scenario or the scenarios stipulated

herein, the Student Regents ruling was, by universally accepted parliamentary law per

Roberts Rules of Order (RONR), irregularand illegal.

We move on now to question the basis of the postponement: the alleged act of bribery

within the GASC, specifically of UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC. Could the cited act have really been

bribery, as alleged? Could the cited act have really compromised the integrity of the GASC as

a whole and the proposed CRSRS amendments?

2. The ruling of the Student Regent is without legal basis because the allegation of bribery thatsupposedly compromised the integrity of the GASC as a whole and the proposed CRSRS

amendments is not grounded on laws of the land and principles of parliamentary

procedure.

The alleged act cited by UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC cannot be properly defined as bribery per

laws of the Republic of the Philippines.

Per common knowledge in the world of law, the answer to the question of whether or not

the act cited by UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC can be interpreted as an attempted bribery is

immediate: No, on the simple basis that bribery is strictly a crime committed by governmentofficials or public officers. In the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act No. 3815), Sec. 2

(Bribery) of Chapter 2 (Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office) of Title 7 (Crimes

Committed by Public Officers) describes bribery through Art. 210-212 as:

Art. 210.Direct bribery. Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act

constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in

consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally

or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its

medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not

less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to

the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which

does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same

penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been

accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium

period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.


8/16



If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer

refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the

penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the

value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift.

In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer

the penalty of special temporary disqualification.chan robles virtual law library

The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to

assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons

performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).

Art. 211. Indirect bribery. The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and

maximum periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer whoshall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa

Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).

Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. The same penalties imposed upon the officer

corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any

person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as

described in the preceding articles.

This means that, for an act to be deemed as bribery per Philippine law, the act must

necessarily involve at least two persons one, a public official, the other, a person not

necessarily holding public office. How is a public officer as penalized by such articlesdefined? Art. 203 of the Revised Penal Code provides the answer:

Art. 203.Who are public officers. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this

and the preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law,

popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the

performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall

perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee,

agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public

officer.

From these articles in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which necessarily applies to

all organizations, institutions, and the like under the sovereignty of the Republic of the

Philippines and is universally above any other rule or law adopted by such bodies, we are

thus now enlightened that the act cited by UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC cannot strictly be deemed

as bribery. Assuming away that indeed UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC was telling the truth during

the proceedings of the GASC, the act that UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC cited did not involve,

anywhere in the point of manifestation, a public officer as defined by the Revised Penal

Code. Simply said, a student council or a student council officer is not an officer or employee


9/16



of the Government of the Philippine Islands or of any of its branches and thus cannot be

bribed.

By definition alone, therefore, the case is already lost.

The integrity of the GASC as a whole is not compromised by the allegation of bribery in UP

Miag-ao SOTECHSC.

Assuming however that there was indeed a case of bribery to be investigated, does this

necessarily compromise or sacrifice the integrity of the General Assembly of Student

Councils as a whole? No, for the simple reason that the case of bribery involving UP Miag-ao

SOTECHSC is an isolated case that does not affect the integrity of the entire Assembly.

Disciplinary procedures and trials concerning individual members of the Assembly areproperly stipulated through parliamentary law and one good mechanism by which the

Assembly could have been saved from the trouble of having a member involved in the case

is to inhibit the involved member from further participating in the Assembly. In any case,

with or without inhibition from the part of UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC, the involvement of one

member in a disciplinary case does not necessarily compromise the integrity of the whole

Assembly. The individualcase should have been individuallydealt with and should not have

been interpreted to impair the collective integrity of the GASC. It is rather disappointing to

realize that the assumption of declaring compromise of integrity of the GASC as a whole

commits a slippery slope fallacy wherein, just because one student council testified to an

attempted bribery, all other student councils and the entire Assembly are placed in doubt.

The integrity of the proposed amendments to the CRSRS should be decided by the body as a

body.

Aside from the compromised integrity of the GASC, it was also raised during the Assembly

that the integrity of the proposed amendments to the CRSRS has also been compromised

due to the allegation of bribery. This does not automatically hold. For one, technically

speaking, there has been no seconded motion yet to adopt the proposed CRSRS

amendments at the time the Student Regent ruled against their discussion. This means that,

technically, the proposed CRSRS amendments are not yet property of the Assemblybut

remain to be property of their proponents. Thus, even if we were to assume that the

Assemblys integrity has been compromised, it does not necessarily compromise along

with it the integrity of the proposed amendments.

Further, because the proponents, namely, UP Diliman College of Social Sciences and

Philosophy Student Council (UPD CSSPSC), UP Los Banos College of Agriculture Student

Council (UPLB CASC), UP Los Banos College of Arts and Sciences Student Council (UPLB

CASSC), and UP Los Banos College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology Student

Council (UPLB CEATSC) were not in any way involved or even cited in the alleged case of

bribery, the proposed CRSRS amendments which remain to be their property cannot be


10/16



compromised by the individual case of UP Miag-ao SOTECHSC. What has happened here is

that we as an Assembly encroached on the basic parliamentary rights of proponents A, B,

and C who are bona fide members of the Assembly, reserving all their rights as such, to

forward motions to the GASC on the sole basis that entity D not necessarily linked to A, B,

and C have attempted to bribe another Assembly member E in exchange of, coincidentally

and presumably, the motions that A, B, and C pose to forward to the Assembly. Because A,

B, and C on one hand are not linked to E, although they supposedly have the same object, A,

B, and C cannot be faulted for what E committed and thus their rights should not have been

encroached upon by the Assembly as done with disciplinarily erring members of assembly.

3. The ruling of the Student Regent is contradictory to the democratic interests of the studentsbecause it effectively silences democratic discourse and debate on a pressing student

issue, the adoption or non-adoption of amendments to the rules for student regent

selection.

Effectively silencing without a definite timeframe the issue of the proposed CRSRS

amendments, the Student Regent has acted against the interest of the students which is to

settle the rules for student regent selection before the actual selection process starts.

Without necessarily making a stand on the proposed amendments, we find that non-

discussion of and non-voting on the proposals with immediacy curtails the right of the

students of the UP System to a speedy and due democratic process.

The proposed CRSRS amendments as an issue is a genuine student concern that demands

debate and discourse among student councils duly elected by their student constituents, as

evidenced chiefly by the issues appearance in statements of legitimate studentorganizations and a student publication.

Without necessarily taking a side, it is evident that the issue of the CRSRS amendments is a

pressing concern among students of our University. Since the conclusion of the GASC last

December 2011, it is witnessed that there has been a rise in discussion among students on

the proposed CRSRS amendments.

We cite in Appendix A statements of four legitimate and recognized student organizations

from three UP units, namely, Mission Impossible by Movement of Students for

Progressive Leadership in UP from Los Banos (released December 22, 2011), The Bottom

Line by Campus Alliance for Dedicated and Unified Action or CADUA from Baguio (released

December 23, 2011), Break the Status Quo! by BUKLOD-UPLB from Los Banos (released

December 25, 2011), and Height of Hypocrisy by Bigkis ng mga Iskolar para sa Bayan tungo

sa Makabuluhang Pagbabago UP Manila (BIGKIS-UPM) from Manila (released December

27, 2011). We also cite in Appendix A the article of Diliman-based student publication

Philippine Collegian or Kule written by Keith Richard D. Mariano in its issue no. 21 released

January 10, 2012 entitled Alleged bribery in GASC delays resolution on SR selection rules.


11/16



Without necessarily echoing the statements or reports of these student organizations and

student publication, it is apparent that the issue of the CRSRS amendments is indeed a

pressing concern that has captured the imagination of the students. On this basis, therefore,

whether intentionally or unintentionally, the Student Regent has acted against student

interest when she ruled that the issue shall not be resolved during the most recent GASC.

It is in the interest of the students to resolve the rules for student regent selection before the

actual selection process begins.

The Student Regent being the sole representative of the students to the highest

policymaking body in the University, the Board of Regents, it is only in the interest of the

students that the rules for selecting the Student Regent must be resolved at the soonest

time and through the most democratic manner possible.

This means that the proposals to amend the CRSRS should have been either adopted or

killed in the most appropriate time and venue, which was supposed to be the convention of

the GASC last December 20-21, 2011. Effectively delaying this resolution, the ruling of the

Student Regent during the said convention is therefore against the interest of the students

in ensuring that the next Student Regent is selected in a timely and democratic manner.

On the grounds of these three reasons, we, the UP Manila CAMPSC, a duly elected student council in the

University and therefore a legitimate member of the GASC, reserving all our rights as member of such

assembly, in the interest of preserving the integrity of the GASC as a deliberative assembly governed by

legitimate rules, file and forward this appeal to the Office of the Student Regent and the GASC against

the cited ruling of the Student Regent against the discussion of the proposed CRSRS amendments duringthe GASC convention last December 20-21, 2011 in UP Miag-ao, Iloilo.

We pray to all student councils of the UP System to join their voices in the growing clamor for the

reconvention of the GASC. Attached to this appeal is a call with concrete proposals from UP Baguio

University Student Council to reconvene the GASC on the 25th

and 26th

of February 2012.

Thank you.

Signed,

Patrick Evandel Manlapaz

Chairperson

College of Allied Medical Professions Student Council

University of the Philippines Manila


12/16



APPENDIX A: STATEMENTS AND REPORT DEMONSTRATING THAT THE ISSUE OF THE CRSRS

AMENDMENTS IS A PRESSING STUDENT CONCERN


13/16




14/16




15/16




16/16



UPM CAMPSC - appeal vs SR ruling

Documents

Transcript of UPM CAMPSC - appeal vs SR ruling